Comment

Representation ID: 423

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Pegasus Grab Hire Ltd

Agent: Emery Planning

Policy DLP76 Waste Sites
3.13 Policy DLP76 seeks to protect and safeguard existing strategic waste management facilities from inappropriate development to maintain existing levels of waste management capacity.
3.14 Paragraph 17.20 of the supporting text which accompanies the policy defines a strategic waste
management site as:
a) all facilities that form a vital part of the borough’s municipal waste management infrastructure, e.g. energy from waste plants, waste transfer facilities and HWRCs, depots.
b) all commercial waste management facilities that fulfil more than one local role, e.g. they are part of a nationwide or regional operation linked to other facilities elsewhere and take in waste from all over the borough and / or beyond.
c) all commercial facilities specialising in a particular waste stream or waste management technology, of which there are no others, or very few other of the same type operating elsewhere in the borough.
d) all facilities likely to make a significant contribution towards existing waste management capacity.
e) a site with sufficient capacity to recover, treat or dispose of at least 20,000 tonnes of waste per annum.
f) a facility forming part of the UK’s network of installations for waste disposal, such as landfill sites.
g) a hazardous waste recovery facility of sufficient size to qualify as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

3.15 As drafted, the plan contradicts this policy and fails to protect existing waste facilities through the
allocation of sites within the plan. Our clients site as considered under section 5 below, operates as an
aggregate recycling and recovery facility, the recent installation of new state of the art washing and sorting
facility and the increased capacity of the site means it would now meet the definition of a strategic waste
management site as provided at paragraph 17.20 of the plan, falling at least within categories b), c), d) and e).

3.16 However, the site has not been allocated within the draft plan for employment purposes, nor by extension
and application of the site hierarchy at 17.20, despite the contribution the site can make in assisting in
meeting the borough’s identified shortfall in capacity as identified within the Dudley Waste Study (2023).
This is a significant omission given Pegasus’ contribution to waste management both within and for Dudley
MBC and the wider West Midlands authorities’ areas where they play a significant role in also maintaining
critical infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 605

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Worcestershire County Council

Policy DLP76 Waste Sites
Part 1 of the policy refers to the safeguarding of “all existing strategic (as listed in the ‘Justification’ below) and other waste management facilities” [our emphasis]. The policy does not set different tests depending on whether the waste site is “strategic”. The Justification, at paragraphs 17.18-17.20, explains why some sites are strategic and goes on to list them, but again does not suggest any difference in approach between a strategic site and any other waste site. If there is no difference in how the policy is applied to strategic and non-strategic sites, then the policy could avoid confusion by simply referring to “all existing waste management facilities”.
Paragraph 17.20 of the Justification lists the seven types of sites/facilities that are defined as “strategic”. Part (d) is “all facilities likely to make a significant contribution towards existing waste management capacity”. It is unclear what could constitute “significant”. Part (f) is “a facility forming part of the UK’s network of installations for waste disposal, such as landfill sites.” We are unclear if this network is an ‘official’ grouping defined by government or industry. If it is, further detail would be welcomed. If it is not, the point could be changed to simply “a facility for waste disposal, such as landfill sites.”
The four criteria (a) –(d) under Part 1 of the policy set out the circumstances where waste site safeguarding will not apply. These are:
a. there is no longer a need for the facility; and
b. capacity can be met elsewhere; or
c. appropriate compensatory provision is made in appropriate locations elsewhere in the borough; or
d. the site is required to facilitate the strategic objectives of the Plan.
We question whether the “and” after criteria (a) should actually be an “or”. If there is no longer a need for the facility, then it is unclear why the additional circumstances (e.g. providing capacity elsewhere) would be necessary.
Criteria (d) appears to be very broad in scope, due to the high-level nature of the plan’s strategic objectives. This is especially the case with objective 2 “Enabling Economic Prosperity” and objective 3 “Enhancing Places and Communities”. There is a risk that either of these broad objectives could be used to justify the alternative use of a waste site for most types of development coming forward;
we are therefore concerned about the ability to effectively safeguard waste development using this policy and feel this could be strengthened.
Part 3 of policy DLP76 addresses potential land-use conflicts between waste management facilities and other development, referring to housing and other potentially sensitive uses not being permitted “near to” or adjacent to existing waste management sites. Footnote 47 seeks to explain what “near” means in this context, but this open-ended explanation fails to provide the necessary clarity, leaving it to a case-by-case judgement. The absence of a definitive distance could make the policy difficult to apply. While any distance must necessarily be arbitrary to some extent, either of the upper or lower range of figures cited in footnote 47 (100m or 150m) could be included within the policy as a reasonable ‘rule of thumb’ to trigger consideration of safeguarding. We note that part (3) of Policy DLP81 - concerning minerals safeguarding - sets a single distance of 150m to trigger consideration of mineral safeguarding; this may also be an appropriate distance to apply to waste sites. The potential for the 150m distance threshold to trigger unnecessary and onerous assessments could be avoided by making clear that the assessment would be proportionate; the waste assessments described in 17.25 would allow for this proportionality, such that where a site is within 150m (or whatever fixed distance is included in the policy), but it would clearly not present a waste safeguarding concern, the assessment could be commensurately brief.
Criterion (a) of policy DLP76 part 3 set out that an exemption to waste safeguarding would be where “a temporary permission for a waste use has expired, or the waste management use has otherwise ceased, and the site or infrastructure is considered unsuitable for a subsequent waste use.” [our emphasis]. It is unclear from the word “considered” whether it is for the applicant to make this judgement, or for the planning authority.
The exemption in criterion (b) of policy DLP76 is where “redevelopment of the waste site or loss of waste infrastructure would form part of a strategy or scheme that has wider environmental, social and /or economic benefits that outweigh the retention of the site or infrastructure for the waste use and alternative provision is made for the displaced waste use”. Does the alternative provision need to be qualified to ensure it is suitable to waste management operators? As with our concerns on part 1(d) of this policy, this wording may be too broad. Most housing developments could, and possibly would, argue that they provide wider environmental, social and/or economic benefits and that these benefits outweigh the retention of the waste site. Policies elsewhere in the DLP that support appropriate housing, employment and other non-waste development will need to be taken into account by decision makers. As such, there is arguably no need to include the weighting issue within the waste policy, in the same way that the weighing of waste safeguarding against a non-waste development does not need to appear in relevant policies for housing and employment land.
We would also welcome clarity on what type of development would “form part of a strategy or scheme”. If the policy point is intended to relate only to larger-scale comprehensive regeneration schemes, then this may need to be made clearer. A single dwelling or single business unit could potentially have wider environmental, social and/or economic benefits to be weighed against waste safeguarding.
Paragraph 17.23 of the Justification states that “Another important material consideration will be whether or not the waste operations are lawful, i.e., whether they have planning permission or a lawful development certificate. For example, if the waste operations are unauthorised and unsuitable for the location, the Council will normally consider taking enforcement action to stop them.” The second sentence is unnecessary, as enforcement action is a separate issue. If the policy is intended to apply only to lawful waste operations - which we understand to be the case - it may be better to make this clear from the outset (for example in 17.17) and to remove this reference.

Comment

Representation ID: 868

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: West Midlands Resource Technical Advisory Body (WMRTAB)

WMRTAB generally supports the approach in the Draft DLP to safeguarding existing waste management capacity but has the following observations:

• Clause 1 of Policy DLP76 mentions ‘other waste sites’ but it is not clear what these are. Should this make it clear that this means all other waste sites which are allowed to operate by planning legislation?
• The identified ‘strategic waste sites’ and ‘other waste sites’ appear to have the same level of safeguarding protection and so it is unclear why a distinction has been made between strategic and other waste sites. If the intention is to safeguard all waste sites, regardless of whether they are considered strategic or not, then WMRTAB recommend that the policy states this clearly.
• It is not clear what paragraph 17.18 means about recognising the wider Black Country context. Might this mean that a waste facility which is located in Dudley but primarily serving the needs of another part of the Black Country would be safeguarded? Or might it mean that if alternative compensatory capacity could be found in another part of the Black Country then a safeguarded site could be released for redevelopment? Either way, it is suggested that some further explanation and possibly wording in Policy DLP76 is needed.
• Clause 1. d. appears to introduce a contradiction as the ‘strategic objectives’ include those concerned with ensuring the management of waste.